newsroom also commented

From Councillor John Semple:
It has been announced by First Milk and the Scottish Government that the future of dairy and cheese production in Kintyre has been secured for the long-term following the further intervention of the Scottish Government. Prolonged negotiations had been taking place with Tesco’s, who subsequently withdrew from a partnership arrangement with First Milk to build a new store on the existing creamery site. Tesco were awarded planning permission subject to the building of a new creamery. The new store will not now go ahead.

Commenting on the announcement, local SNP Councillor John Semple said –

“This is a welcome break for hardworking Kintyre farmers who depend on the Campbeltown Creamery, these families have been held in suspense over the last few months, they can now look forward to surety of a market for their milk.

“Local traders who questioned the impact of a Tesco superstore on business can also breathe a sigh of relief, but it will be a disappointment for consumers who had hoped to benefit from a wider choice of goods and consumables. My hope is that Tesco will now look at their existing site for further development. This site sits within the safety zone of the Campbeltown gasworks and is only suitable for limited types of development.”

Leader of the SNP group on Argyll and Bute Council, Robert MacIntyre, a dairy farmer himself said –

“This is great news for Kintyre farmers and for Argyll and Bute. The Campbeltown creamery is a significant employer and the products are well known across the country putting this area on the food map of the UK. The commitment shown by the Scottish Government towards this key producer is credit to a government that understands industry and rurality.”

Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named PersonsIt is worth noting that in its judgment the Supreme Court said:
‘“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.’

Bute refugees suffer from inadequately considered placementEveything you say above applies justly to those who radicalise – but not necessarily to those who are vulnerable to be radicalised.
When you are young, everything in life is understood in simple binary oppositions. It is only time and broad experience that introduces and embeds the tonalities of understanding.
Many of the young everywhere, from the need to belong and from the acceleration of peer pressure, are also prone to follow the accepted behavioural norms or fashions of their peers.
This is why radicalisation is most easily effected in cities and amongst the large cultural enclaves that can form there.
The young, in their uncluttered understanding, are also idealist – and extremism is a form of idealism perverted.
What you say about the safety and security that relocated refugees now possess is also correct – but is amended by two considerations.
One is the automatic perception of all refugees as having the education to hold such an understanding of their situation. Many will be educated – some very highly indeed – but by no means all will have had the opportunity of education.
The second is that, as may be the case with some of the Bute families, if they feel and look ‘different’ from everyone around them and if they cannot communicate, some will feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, even intimidated – and it is unrealistic to assume that refugees will be universally made welcome in any locality.
We had assumed that the acceptance of such refugees here would mean the automatic employment of those qualified to teach English as a foreign language and that such classes would be taught in a regular and compulsory schedule.
This would be a responsible and necessary provision if integration is to be a realistic achievement.
We do not know if such provision has been made and there seems to be no mention of it.

It remains a mystery why, when political party leadership elections require set percentages well above 50% to secure a win, politicians would not have reason and wit to see that decisions taking a member of a significant political union out of that union, changing the nature of the larger union [helpless to prevent that] as well as the nature of the departing member, that decisions of such weight and permanence cannot sensibly be taken by 50% + 1 single vote of an electorate.
The opportunity for due revision was not taken following the Scottish Referendum, which was run under this rule.
Something like a 60% threshold would guard decisions against the percentage of transient whim – and/or of misunderstanding and/or of misinformedness – in any vote; and these are the things that that can help to create very narrow majorities on very profound issues.
Opinion polls declare that their results are subject to a 3% margin for error.
In the EU Referendum, a 2% change of mind would have produced an even tinier – but legally acceptable – majority in the opposite direction.